In article <007001ccbbf1$b4fa8090$1eef81b0$@net>, James Firth
<james2 at jfirth.net> writes
>> It would be helpful if part of the court order process put an
>>obligation upon the ISPs doing the blocking to periodically inspect
>>the [Regional] IP registry entries of the number ranges in question
>>to determine if they have been de-allocated from the original holder,
>>which is an inevitable consequence of any transfer.
>>Agreed, but Arnold, J said exactly the opposite:
>>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/2714.html#para12>>" In saying this, I do not mean that BT will be obliged to check IP
>addresses or URLs notified by the Studios. It will be the Studios'
>responsibility accurately to identify IP addresses and URLs to be notified
>to BT."
>>(Note nothing about removal)
But that's in the context of adding new IP addresses if the target
shifts.
>> There isn't such a shortage of IP addresses that a few thousand (or
>>even tens of thousand) put into quarantine makes much difference.
>>But there is still the business of identifying them of being in quarantine
>in the first place, and maintaining this list (adding/removing). 9
>reasonably-sized ISPs in the UK, plus potentially other countries.
There's no umbrella list required, all it needs is for hosting ISPs to
refrain from reallocating a small address range to a new customer when
they know very well that their original customer got blocked. If they
ever sell/transfer the block containing that address range (which seems
unlikely at the moment, I suspect it's un-used ranges which are being
traded), then the fact it contains such a blocked IP should be part of
the due diligence.
The ISP could make this simpler by adding a note to the registration in
the public database for such blocked IP ranges.
>Systems for managing spam blacklists have evolved over the last 20(?) years.
>This is new and is driven by a different set of motives.
ISPs are full of clever people. They'll cope.
--
Roland Perry